History of the Universe and Earth

[Your Computer]

I think I lost you. Who told you the universe was created in the first place? Why are you so racist? What's wrong with the universe being eternal? If such an entity could exist and be eternal why not simply say that the Universe existed forever (if Big Bang is correct --> Infinity of Big Bangs - Big Crunches, otherwise --> it just exists forever)? I don't see the need for a creator. Also how can a creator exist before the Big Bang when there is no before the Big Bang? It doesn't make any sense. So I suppose he lives somewhere (?) else. Now that's NOT in spacetime ( can't be because it fails the previous argument), it's not a place or any given moment in time. But it's something. Again there is a need for another creator. This leads to a never ending hierarchy*.

*Which if I understood correctly is the thing you tried to avoid? Ooops!

I am not sure how to respond to this. Not because i have no response, but that your questions are redundant and odd (the odd part being suggesting that i'm a racist of some kind). If you read my post, especially the part that you underlined, you would have had your answers before posting these questions. So, i agree that you have lost me at some point. While quite tedious, i will guide you through my text in some way in hopes of you being able to navigate through my words.

True, through the declaration of an unnatural big bang event, i did imply that the universe was formed by an external, conscious, omnipotent entity (read, "So if such a contraction cannot occur naturally, may require an infinite amount of energy, the "laws" observable today applied back then too, i would find that a conscious entity who's omnipotent (i.e. greater than the universe) to be a suitable and logical explanation for any `big bang` event."). However, in making such a declaration, i did not create scenarios where it is impossible for matter to be eternal (read, "this allows for things other than this conscious entity to be eternal in their nature."), nor was any statement made from me that necessitates creation (read, "however(!), this `eternal` characteristic could only be demanded for this conscious entity"). Indeed, any statement on creation did not come from me but from the implications of the big bang theory itself, from which i commented on. Also, if the "universe" existed forever, then clearly we're not talking about the big bang event, so your question on that is irrelevant to the discussion of the big bang.

I could understand why you would see no need for a creator or an external, omnipotent, conscious entity if logic permitted something-from-nothing and if contractions that cause (un)natural deconstructions of matter at incredible scales was something that can occur naturally for this universe. Otherwise, i do not understand how you cannot see the need for something like God in order for a "big bang" to occur (therefore pre-existing the big bang).

"Space" and "time" in themselves do not exist, as it is merely an abstract idea of the mind, so i would find it absurd to claim that an external entity was "somewhere," or that spacetime applies to this entity, if nothing but that entity existed. Likewise, as i mentioned (read, "All truth is logical, even though all things logical may not be true, so at least we could leave out absurdities like nothing --> something."), assuming that nothing pre-existed the big bang is itself an absurdity (read, "So we can derive from this examination that nothing cannot create something, and that some form of recipe (with `ingredients`!) or `laws of nature` had to exist, for if they didn't, nothing would have resulted from the big bang event, for there would be no event to begin with.").

Why is there a need for more than one external, conscious, and omnipotent entity, when the one mentioned is all that is required, demanded, implied, etc, for unnatural events? You have not explained yourself here and i would rather not assume that your only argument for an infinite regression of external entities is because they're outside of "spacetime" (since having such an assumption i would find to be absurd).

Note: The Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply the creation of the universe.
Also the entire question "who/what made the universe?" doesn't make any sense. There was no time for anything or anyone to create the universe in the first place.

True, due to the fact that--assuming universal contractions to the scale of the big bang are natural--eternity and conservation of energy allow for infinite regressions, the big bang doesn't necessarily imply the creation of the universe. But if one is looking to avoid infinite regressions, it would make great sense to include a "who" or a "what" in the "when, where, why, how" sequence of questions. That is, unless, you're satisfied with the absurd statement that "nothing pre-existed the big bang." (Which i doubt you are, since you appear to be quick to ask, "Why can't the universe have existed forever?")